Madison in the 70shttp://sites.jmu.edu/mad70s
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:46:25 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Faculty Senatehttp://sites.jmu.edu/mad70s/2013/05/08/faculty-senate/
Wed, 08 May 2013 18:41:01 +0000http://sites.jmu.edu/mad70s/?p=4669The Faculty Senate was created during the 1970s to give faculty a greater voice in university governance. Its early records are available at Special Collections. It would be a great project for someone!

Dean Ehlers presenting Outstanding Athlete of the Year Award to Tom Riley

The 1970’s proved to be quite a pivotal time in the athletics’ scene at Madison College and would later be changed to James Madison University in 1976 (Montana). One of the things that would be new to the school during this time was the installation of men’s sports, which would hit a turning point with the hiring of Dean Ehlers as the new Athletic Director in 1972 (The Grandstander). President Carrier would continue to add to his “Memphis Mafia” when he hired the ex-Memphis basketball and before being hired was the Athletic Director for the public school system in memphis. Ehlers would go on to change the face of the Dukes entire athletic program.

When Ehlers came on board, the school was still growing in their men’s population, many of their men’s sports teams were either new, or yet to be developed, and on top of it all President Carrier had a surprise for Ehlers at his introduction press conference. “I’d like for you all to meet Dean Ehlers, he’s going to be the new athletic director,” said Carrier, “and he’s also going to coach men’s basketball this year.” (Montana) Ehlers had no idea that he would be coaching the team that year, but he remembers Carrier saying he wanted to “save money” (Montana)for that year. Even though Ehlers was only the coach for a year to give way to coach Campanelli in 1972 (Campanelli), but he made quite the impact in that year as he led the team to their best record in their short history at 16-7((Montana), including an impressive season opening win with a score of 146-50 (Bluestone 1972).

Ehlers coaching his players during a game

Although he was a successful coach in his one year, but he was “happy with the idea of devoting full time to his duties as Athletic Director,” (Campanelli) and a job he would end up doing. With his time at JMU he saw the sports teams go from Division III to Division and help found the Colonial Athletic Association that the school sports teams are in today(Montana). Many of the men’s teams were playing at Harrisonburg High School and the department only had about $44,000 in budget, compared to $34 million tody(Montana). At this point the football team did not even have a season, and was known to recruit players waiting to register for school(Montana). Ehlers was well liked in the JMU community, and is still a part of it to the best of his abilities, and will always be known for the job he did for JMU athletics(Montana). For his work, Ehlers was recently inducted into the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame, where the job he did can be on show for everyone to see.

The one thing that the school was trying to accomplish when bringing in Ehlers was to create a coeducational institute that could compete with anyone else in the state. For President Carrier, he wanted to bring men into the school and create a diverse institution that had not been accomplished at the school, and by bringing in Ehlers, he thought it was possible to create an athletic program that would attract men to Madison (Dr. Carrier). He of course thought a football program would be what creates the best results, but just the general idea of a formal athletic program was needed first, and that was what Ehlers was brought on to do, and without him, may never had been achieved.

This exhibit will try to look at internationalism at James Madison during the 1970s. The concept of internationalization has been advocated by higher education institutions beginning from the early 1970s, the way that this has been defined has been in two main ways by numerous authors (Hans De Wit, Aigner and Knight) when looking at internationalization of higher education .

The first being internationalisation of action this would generally involve study abroad programmes, having an international student body and organisations, as well as the recruitment of international academic staff. This has been described as the activity approach, Zha Qiang states that “the activity approach was synonymous with the term of international education in the 1970s”.

The second being a broadening of the curriculum and trying to instil an awareness of different values and ideas, this second understanding of internationalisation is the more modern of the two, and has been labelled at the competency approach.

However the two ideas are not mutually exclusive and work best when used in combination. Both of these can be seen to be occurring to a degree at James Madison. For the activity approach the development of the study abroad program in London will be looked at, as well as the international student presence on campus. For the competency approach the response to international events will be examined particularly through reporting in The Breeze and course offerings at James Madison.

A student trying to study in a loud residence hallstudent handbook 1972

Before the creation of Office of Residence Halls in 1974, today the Office of Residence Life, dormitory policy was enforced by representatives in the house council. The house council evolved over the years and is now most similar to the residence hall’s Community Activities Board. According to the 1971-1972 student handbook, “The house council is a self-contained unit consisting of a president, a vice-president and from one to 3 monitors for each floor, and a Judicial representative per floor or per section. This council, which is in charge of all regulations affecting the living of the resident group…” The house council was a branch of the Student Government Association and represented the residential students. The house council was also able to give sanctions to residents breaking policy. The council’s positions were filled by volunteer students in each dormitory and were voted in by the other residents in the building. This is very different than today and it seems strange that students could vote in the person who would be enforcing the rules on them. However in the later half of the 1970’s enforcing residence hall policies was the job of the Resident Adviser, but the house council still existed.

1971-1972 Student Handbook

The student handbook from 1973-1974 year describes for the first time a residence hall staff member is “on duty” in the building. These staff members would “maintain order and quiet in the hall” and stay on duty until 2:00am on weekends. Resident Advisers were now responsible for keeping quiet hours, visitation hours, explaining proper checkout procedure for residents moving out of the building, enforcing the alcohol policy, and many more. The RA on duty each night would, and still does today, walk around the building making sure all doors are safely shut and there are no policies being violated.

Resident Advisers also were granted the responsibility of holding programs to benefit the residential community. According to Dr. Mark Warner the RA’s were required to hold a social and an academic program during the school year for the residents. These programs are still in use today and the Office of Residence Life requires RA’s to hold three different types of programs depending on the class of the resident community.

Works Cited:

1971-1972 Madison College Student Handbook, Residence Hall Policies

1972-1973 Madison College Student Handbook, Residence Hall Policies

]]>Feminism in the 70s: The Second Wavehttp://sites.jmu.edu/mad70s/2013/05/01/feminism-in-the-70s-the-second-wave/
Wed, 01 May 2013 07:07:22 +0000http://sites.jmu.edu/mad70s/?p=3795

To examine feminism as it existed at Madison College, and eventually, James Madison University, in the 1970s, it is first important to address how feminism existed as a nationwide phenomenon during this period. For the purposes of this endeavor, “feminism”- a term that often ignites intense debate over meaning, purpose, and membership, will be taken to refer specifically to Second Wave Feminism as it existed during the 1970s. However, as Second Wave Feminism is still a relatively nebulous and controversial topic, as all incarnations of feminism continue to be to this day, for simplicity’s sake, this exhibit will use the definition put forth in Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee’s text Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions. According to Shaw and Lee, Second wave feminism is the “twentieth-century period of social activism from the 1960s through the 1980s that addressed formal and informal inequalities associated, for example, with the workplace, family, sexuality, and reproductive freedom.” (Shaw and Lee, 3)

The potential for feminism at Madison College during this period is, of course, greatly complicated by a number of factors that are somewhat unique to this institution, including:

1) Its history as a women’s only institution

2) Its geographical position in the American south, and the cultural heritage that carries

3) Its relatively conservative student population

4) Its active athletics, fraternity, and party cultures

In light of these, and many other factors, this exhibit seeks to determine if and to what degree the broader national trend of feminism in the 1970s translated to feminist activity, consciousness, and identification among the population of Madison College in this period.

]]>Dream of a New ERA: Advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment at Madisonhttp://sites.jmu.edu/mad70s/2013/05/01/dream-of-a-new-era-advocacy-for-the-equal-rights-amendment-at-madison/
Wed, 01 May 2013 07:06:03 +0000http://sites.jmu.edu/mad70s/?p=3799

Students used the Breeze to voice their opinions on the ERA

The “Equal Rights Amendment” is a piece of potential legislation with a long, complicated, and controversial history that dates back to its initial introduction to Congress in 1923. Despite simply pushing to codify a seemingly agreeable notion- that men and women are equals and thus should be treated as such under the U.S. constitution- the amendment has yet to be ratified 90 years later. As rewritten in the 1940s, the ERA simply reads “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridge by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment received little attention before the 1970s, when amendment finally passed Congress in 1972. At this point, the amendment became a talking point for the media and some on the political right, despite widespread public support. Among the popular myths associated with the ERA were that it would encourage women to desert families and motherhood, that it would provide unchecked abortion rights, make women eligible for combat and the draft, and, perhaps most horrifying to some conservatives, that it would give gays and lesbians full rights under the law. Because of the campaigning of anti-feminist conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly and increasingly negative depictions of the ERA and feminism in the media, the ERA was dropped from the Republican Party platform and eventually failed to attain ratification by three states.

Like the rest of the nation around it, the Madison and its students were engaged in the discourse and debate concerning the Equal Rights Amendment. An important tool for students wishing to get their opinion on the ERA out to a larger audience was The Breeze, particularly the Letter to the Editor section, which allowed ordinary students to submit their own articles for the school’s newspaper. In one such letter to the editor, two women in favor of the amendment gave their passionate argument for why they felt it was necessary. It first introduces the reader to the three articles that comprise the Equal Rights Amendment, so they are able to know exactly what is being supported by the article. Following this introduction, the remainder of the letter features an intelligent and concise argument in support of the amendment. It addresses the common myths surrounding the legislation, including issues such as bathrooms and protective labor legislation. They provide a very memorable response to the fear of women in the military, arguing that “equal rights demands equal responsibilities.”

Another such article is framed as a direct response to another opinion piece that apparently was fraught with the many myths that plagued the bill. This is unsurprising, as this piece was written in 1979, right in the midst of the most heated portion of the debate over the ERA. The author of the piece pragmatically acknowledges that no malicious intent was likely meant by the author of the previous piece, and that they were likely misinformed by the myths that surrounding the ERA during this period. Passionate opinion pieces such as these two display that even on the southern, conservative campus of Madison, students were responding to the momentum of this amendment and developing their own consciousness about the positive effects such legislation could have on their own lives and on the nation as a whole.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized first trimester abortion in the United States, opened the floodgates, so to speak, on debate over abortion across the country. Some Americans, particularly those fashioning themselves as “pro-life” viewed the decision as a legal sanction on murder. On the other hand, “pro-choice” advocates viewed the decision as a major victory for women’s reproductive rights, as it allowed women the option of safe, regulated access to abortion services. This is crucial when noting that prior to 1973, illegal abortions were responsible for the death of up to 5,000 women a year. Since the decision in Roe v. Wade, the debate over abortion has become increasingly heated and polarized among the American public. Feminists, with small exceptions like the group Feminists for Life, generally fall on the “pro-choice” side of the argument, arguing for women’s autonomy over their own bodies. Abortion has, in fact, sometimes been seen as the raison d’être of Second Wave Feminism, but the reality is clearly much more complex than that. Like the rest of the country, the students of Madison were passionately involved in the debate over abortion, as referenced in letters to the editor of The Breeze that sometimes even inspired direct responses from other readers. These articles provide a fascinating glimpse into the opinions of a few representatives of Madison’s populace, showing the ways in which their views reflect the larger debate going on nationwide. (Shaw and Lee, 300-301)

“The Abortionists” was a student-written play that starred five talking fetuses. 1973.

One article article discussing abortion reveals the existence of a student-written and directed play called “The Abortionists,” which was apparently performed in Anthony-Seeger Hall on three nights in March of 1973. The play, which was a student project by then Senior Speech and Drama major Bob Plummer, starred five talking fetuses engaged in a dialogue with the outside world that involves “the justifications of abortion.” According to the article, the play presented the abortion debate to the audience “in an objective manner, leaving the decisions faced in having an abortion open to the audience’s own conscience.” However, the play does not sound like it was particularly “objective” given that it presented the development of the human embryo and fetus in a scientifically inaccurate manner and personified the fetuses for an emotional appeal. That this play concept would strike the author of the article as “objective” and, perhaps, that the play would happen at all on the Madison campus suggests that the debate on abortion at Madison was not in any way sophisticated in 1973. (Coyle, 5)

One student uses The Breeze to defend abortion rights. 1978.

By 1978, the discourse on abortion at Madison had advanced to the point that this article, “Abortion rights need guarding,” was published in The Breeze. The author of this article, obviously pro-choice, discusses the dangerous precedent set by laws that restrict women’s access to abortion. He argues that a certain proposed law in Akron, Ohio would “frighten young women wanting abortions.” He further argues that, for women’s safety and for their autonomy, women should not be intimidated when seeking abortions, but should be welcomed into a non-judgemental hospital environment that can facilitate abortions in the safest way possible. Of course, such a blatantly pro-choice argument would not go unnoticed at good ol’ Madison College. (Carlson, 3)

A student responds with their own views on the abortion debate. 1978.

One student, Olen D. Burkholder, apparently was not happy with the views expressed by Kris Carlson in his article on abortion, as he wrote an article directly responding to Carlson’s essentially expressing the exact opposite opinion. While Carlson holds that abortion laws should not frighten women, Burkholder feels that abortion laws must intimidate women seeking abortions. He believes abortion laws should intimidate women because “the decision to voluntarily take a human life is a very serious one.” He goes on to call abortion an ” uncivilized option” and goes in to misrepresent abortion by calling it “the slaughter of thousands of innocent babies.” The author then moves beyond traditional pro-life rhetoric and moves into a type of rhetoric that could probably be described as dangerously anti-woman. In response to Carlson’s argument that without access to legal abortions, many women would end up dying as a result of unsafe, illegal procedures, Burkholder says “a few girls wanting abortions may indeed turn to cheap phony doctors or even coat hangers. So what?” Further disregard for the safety and real-life experiences of so many women before Roe v. Wade is shown by Burkholder when he goes on to say “Any woman silly enough to resort to such methods only deserves sympathy for her lack of brains.” This article apparently received no response, suggesting that the rhetoric found within was acceptable to the general student population of Madison College at the time. This demonstrates that, while some students were engaged with feminist ideas regarding abortion, the majority of students skewed right on this particular issue. (Burkholder, 2 and 13)

The development of the Faculty Women’s Caucus at Madison College marks the beginning of an attempt at a more progressive space for women faculty at the college, but its establishment at a time when many other colleges were beginning to go all the more further, with departments like Women’s Studies Programs, marks the relative “backwardness” of this southern campus in respect with the times. However, with the establishment of the Caucus in 1973, Madison faculty women officially joined a movement of women workers that their sisters around the country were and would engage in during this decade, as most directly embodied in the push for the Equal Rights Amendment began in earnest the year before the Caucus was established.

Historians of Madison College are fortunate to have access to a comprehensive history of the first decade of the Madison Women’s Caucus, as compiled in “The History of the James Madison University Faculty Women’s Caucus, 1973-1984.” This document gives a unique glimpse into the inner-workings and personal goals of the Caucus in ways that no other source can. Written by the women most responsible for the success of the Caucus, including its first president, Rose Mary Rummel, this document is essential to understanding the existence of this organization.

Front Page of the History Compiled by the Women’s Caucus, 1984

As Crystal Theodore writes in the first section of this history, the Women’s Caucus was created in direct response to the “inequities between women and men in Academe: salary, rank, promotion policies, and the like.” (Rummel, 1) Essentially, the Caucus was created to address the same concerns that were at the heart of second wave arguments for the ERA and other workplace-based causes prevalent in the feminist movement of the time. For this reason, the Caucus cannot be fully separated from the feminist movement as a whole, because it reflects essentially the same values and arguments that were at the heart of contemporary feminist rhetoric regarding the situation of women in the workplace. Furthermore, this document outlines the original goals of the Caucus, which were later changed in 1976. The changes in the goals of the movement are very reflective of the development of the feminist movement itself over the course of the 70s. The initial goals of the Caucus were as follows:

1) to encourage the administration to make more effective use of the abilities of women faculty members and women administrators

2) to promote opportunities for the advancement of faculty women and women administrators

4) to collect data to show that “what we think and feel is fact” (Rummel, 4-5)

Of note in this list of goals is that it is noticeably more modest than the eventual list of goals that the Caucus would develop and that it almost entirely focuses on reform from within the college, seemingly viewing Madison College as a self-contained unit, without ties to the struggles of working women throughout the country. Over the course of the next few years, the scope of the Caucus would broaden, particularly in 1975, when the Caucus began what would become the annual Dominion Lecture Series, which focused on bringing a female speaker to Madison College, the first of which was Ruth H. Osborn, the Dean of Continuing Education for Women at George Washington University. The reflect the broadening scope of the Caucus, the 1976 update of its goals showed a deeper commitment to the plight of working women as a whole, and a focus on change for the entire nation. The updated goals were as follows:

1) a continuing endeavor to seek the appointment of women to college-wide committees and to positions as heads, deans, and vice-presidents

2) the presentation of the annual Dominion Lecture and the Outstanding Woman of Virgina Award, intended to honor two different women

3) the appointment of a representative to the Congress of Women’s Organizations

4) active support of ERA legislation

5) a breakfast in November honoring women members of the Board of Visitors

This new set of goals, considerably ambitious than the original ones, includes a number of interesting points. The most important goal here is, of course, the support of the ERA, which demonstrates that the Caucus had began to take an active role in feminist discourse and politics, as represented by its proclamation of an official stance on this heated issue. Perhaps most important for its greater legacy at JMU, however, is the establishment of the annual Dominion Lecture, a tradition that has continued to this day and has recently featured such esteemed women as Susan J. Douglass and Joan C. Williams. While the speakers for the Dominion Lectures of the 70s are given analysis in another article in this exhibit, Feminist Speakers on Campus, it is worth mentioning here that The Breeze suggests that these lectures were well-received by students at the time. The Caucus also sponsored “Womens’ Week” in 1975, but this event does not have as much of a lasting legacy. Overall, the Dominion Lecture series is perhaps the Caucus’ most lasting legacy from this period, but the establishment of the Caucus would lead to many important developments in the future, including the establishment of the Women’s Studies Program in the 90s.

The 1970s saw a number of feminist speakers come to the campus of Madison, some famous, others relatively unknown outside their respective fields. Many these speakers were brought to Madison thanks to the efforts of the Madison Women’s Caucus, which, through its excellent Dominion Lecture Series, brought many intelligent female speakers to the campus that would not have spoken here otherwise. The importance of the efforts of the Caucus cannot be overstated, because a large number of the feminist speakers that visited the campus during this period, and in fact, in the future, would not have come without the work of those involved with the Caucus. The importance of feminist speakers themselves on a campus such as Madisons’ can also not be overstated, because feminist speakers can be the root of feminist thought in relatively conservative campuses, especially those in the south. The presence of such famous figures as Jane Fonda and the less familiar faces brought by the caucus, such as Margaret Brewer, allowed women (and men) on campus to engage themselves with feminist ideas that may have not been available to them through other sources.

The first notable feminist speaker to visit Madison College in the 70s is also easily the most famous of them all: Jane Fonda. While Jane Fonda is primarily noted for her anti-war activism, she also spoke candidly about her interest and personal experience with the women’s movement during her speech at Madison. In her speech, she referenced the conservative nature of the campus when she expressed hope that “the movement would soon gain a foothold at Madison.” She went on to discuss her personal experience with the movement, telling the audience about how the birth of her child prompted the development of a “new consciousness of womanhood” within her that helped her get in touch with the movement. Despite Fonda’s high-profile liberal views, the Breeze articles covering her appearance state that there was not much of a negative reaction to her appearance, with one article noting that Fonda “appealed to the brains of her audience, not their brawn.” (Humphreys and Burrows, 4)

Bonnie Angelo, November 20, 1976.

The Madison Women’s Caucus brought a number of important female speakers to campus in the latter half of the 70s through their Dominion Lecture Series. Women who spoke in this series included Ruth H. Osborn, the Dean of Continuing Education at George Washington University, Bonnie Angelo, the Washington Bureau chief for Time, and Margaret Brewer, a brigadier general in the U.S. Marine Corps. Bonnie Angelo, apparently a huge fan of Jimmy Carter, spent her speech praising him, saying he will be a great president for minorities, specifically stating he has a “commitment to women.” Despite her apparent avoidance of the subject of feminism itself, her position as the Washington Burea Chief of Time magazine was a wonderful example of a strong, career-minded woman for the women of Madison to look up to. (Amman, 2) Perhaps an even stronger career woman, Margaret Brewer spoke at the 1979 Dominion Lecture about her experiences working within the U.S. Marines. As the first female Marine general, Brewer shared her experiences of discrimination on the job and also spoke about the possibility of women in combat roles, saying that even if the ERA passes, women may have a vicious court battle ahead of them if they wish to engage in military battle. (Elmore, 1)

Margaret Brewer, November 12, 1979.

Finally, one unlikely feminist graced Madison’s campus on October 6, 1977: male scientist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. In a passionate speech to 2,000 students in Wilson auditorium, Asimov said that “The only way we can save our civilization into the 21st century is for all men to become feminists.” Proudly exclaiming “I am a feminist,” Asimov explained that the women’s movement, if successful, will solve the problem of overpopulation, by giving women more options both in terms of reproductive health and in terms of how they are able to spend their time. While perhaps not the most squarely feminist argument for supporting the women’s movement, Asimov’s rhetoric no doubt appealed to many students that were not completely on board with the movement, because it provided rational reasoning why they should be, with the stakes as high as they can get. (Richardson, 1)

Announcement of selection of Dr. Carrier as Madison College’s new president. JMU Special Collections.

In his foreword to “Rooted on Blue Stone Hill: A History of James Madison University”, Dr. Ronald E. Carrier states why he accepted the president’s position and came to Madison College in 1971. Carrier states that he “saw an institution with a potential that mattered more than the reality” and that it “stood on so solid a foundation that it could carry unlimited change into the future” (Jones, viii).

No one can say that Dr. Carrier’s presidency, especially during the decade of the 1970’s, did not leave a mark on the James Madison campus. During the 1970’s, “yearly applications [had] soared to 12,000, enrollment [had] boomed, faculty numbers [had] risen to more than 500, and budget allocations [had] increased from $9 million to $42 million” (Jones, 172). Carrier also started the men’s football program, which greatly increased the number of male students and provided entertainment for students on the weekends. The most prominent change that occurred was the change from Madison College to James Madison University, which enhanced the prestige of the school and placed it on the same level as many of the other top-performing colleges in Virginia.

All of these changes that occurred on campus were a part of Carrier’s dream: to turn Madison College into a comprehensive, regional university. The ways in which to achieve this goal was to modernize the student life, reorganize and expand the academic curriculum, establish a football program, breath new life into the faculty and administration, and completely change the philosophy of Madison from that of an all-girls’ teaching school to a coeducational, liberal arts institution. The culmination of all of these changes and the realization of Carrier’s dream came on March 22, 1977 when Madison College was changed to James Madison University.